Read all about it at:
Measure Article
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
The course list posted on September 30 by Stu shows no Men's Olympic Trials Marathon course yet certified in New York City.
The race is a month away. Where is the course?
The race is a month away. Where is the course?
Pete,
That is a good question. I will check with David, Paul or Stu and see if they has any information. The course also should have been post validated and I will check with David and Jim.
That is a good question. I will check with David, Paul or Stu and see if they has any information. The course also should have been post validated and I will check with David and Jim.
I meant to say pre validated not post validate by Jim Gerweck.
I just talked to David Katz and it will be sent in this weekend.
A preliminary map has been received, and a request for commentary. The map may be downloaded from:
Preliminary Men's OT Map
Preliminary Men's OT Map
I compared the map with a map of Central Park. There is an ambiguous area at the west end of the "72nd St Transverse" (Terrace Drive on my map). I have assumed that the runners run to the right of the teardrop-shaped island. I could be wrong.
At the north end I've assumed that the runners use Central Park Driveway (on my map) instead of proceeding north to complete the loop.
At the north end I've assumed that the runners use Central Park Driveway (on my map) instead of proceeding north to complete the loop.
Why does the course make the little detour around the four trees on the 72nd St. transverse? I'll assume it was to pick up distance, but isn't there another way to do it? Is the course restricted as to where it must start and finish?
Jay,
I feel the area around the trees is for extra distance. Also, from what I understand the course had to have a fixed start/finish. They are not described on this rough map, but I'm sure they will be on the final submission.
David, will probably answer your questions.
I feel the area around the trees is for extra distance. Also, from what I understand the course had to have a fixed start/finish. They are not described on this rough map, but I'm sure they will be on the final submission.
David, will probably answer your questions.
Jay:
David tells me that start and finish are tightly fixed because of the needs of television, and that made course design particularly difficult.
David tells me that start and finish are tightly fixed because of the needs of television, and that made course design particularly difficult.
I believe I can shed some light.
The finish is fixed b/c it is the same finish structure to be used to the following day's open ING-NYCM. The start was limited to an area of approx. 25m due to TV constraints.
Given those restrictions, and measuring the approved/preferred route to the park, plus the two park loops, the course came out slightly short of 42,195m. The initial solution was to have the runners turn LEFT (south) on CP West Drive after coming through the 72nd St. transverse and make a 180 around a cone.
I thought this was a bad idea only 6 miles into the race, due to the crowded nature of the field; also, it would have added a hill.
I came up w/ the idead of the 72nd transverse "detour" although my initial idea was to do it on the north side of the transverse where there is a circular plaza overlooking Belvedere Lake. It was felt that the curb cuts here weren't wide enough, so Dave & Hugh came up w/ the alternate detour.
It's not the perfect solution, but it works, and better than a sharp 180.
The finish is fixed b/c it is the same finish structure to be used to the following day's open ING-NYCM. The start was limited to an area of approx. 25m due to TV constraints.
Given those restrictions, and measuring the approved/preferred route to the park, plus the two park loops, the course came out slightly short of 42,195m. The initial solution was to have the runners turn LEFT (south) on CP West Drive after coming through the 72nd St. transverse and make a 180 around a cone.
I thought this was a bad idea only 6 miles into the race, due to the crowded nature of the field; also, it would have added a hill.
I came up w/ the idead of the 72nd transverse "detour" although my initial idea was to do it on the north side of the transverse where there is a circular plaza overlooking Belvedere Lake. It was felt that the curb cuts here weren't wide enough, so Dave & Hugh came up w/ the alternate detour.
It's not the perfect solution, but it works, and better than a sharp 180.
It sure would be nice to see a finished map and a measurement report. After all, the measurement was done two months ago, and the race is nearly upon us.
The final course map has been received from David Katz. Start, finish and splits are shown on a supplementary page.
Measurement documentation is promised before the event.
Measurement documentation is promised before the event.
I'm pleased to see the correct name for the race is used: Olympic Trials Marathon & not the generic Oly Marathon Team Trials. I am, however, a wee bit worried that we run the Trials in '07, not '08 as the date suggests.
The question of the diversion around the trees has arisen. A bit of Google Earth reveals that the distance added by this diversion is on the order of 35 meters. This diversion would only be used once as the route is run.
A less obtrusive way to get the added distance would be to cone a few of the northern corners to force the runners into a wider arc as they turn the corner. As these corners are each run 5 times, only a modest adjustment, multiplied, would make up the distance without requiring the around-the-trees diversion.
It may be too late for this to happen, but a better course would result.
A less obtrusive way to get the added distance would be to cone a few of the northern corners to force the runners into a wider arc as they turn the corner. As these corners are each run 5 times, only a modest adjustment, multiplied, would make up the distance without requiring the around-the-trees diversion.
It may be too late for this to happen, but a better course would result.
Scott, the "official" name is U.S. Olympic Team Trials Marathon.
As for the diversion:
When the course was originally being designed, it was the desire of the organizers to not use any moe coning than was necessary, since it was already being restricted to the rec lane of Central Park (subsequently this was expanded to the rec lane + one).
We were also constrained by having a fixed finish (the same line & structure as the ING-NYCM the next day) and a relatively fixed start (near Rockefeller Ctr. for NBC TV purposes).
After multiple measurements of the two loops and the distance from start to the park, it was determined the course was indeed approx. 35m short.
The initial solution proposed by NYRR was to have the runners run past one of the turns at the beginning or end of the 72nd St. transverse on the first (4 mi.) loop and make a 180, then resume the normal running direction.
I felt this was a bad option for several reasons. At either end it would add a hill, but worse, you would force the best marathoners in the US to make a sharp turn early in what figures to be a very competitive (and thus closely packed) race.
Earlier this summer I noted a circular plaza on the north side of 72nd St. transverse and suggested the runners could be brought in and out of that to add the necessary distance more elegantly. Others felt the curb cuts to enter and exit that plaza weren't wide enough, so the current "detour" was designed by Dave Katz and Hugh Jones.
It's not the best solution, but not unprecedented; I recall running down a much greater length of Literary Walk during the Trevira Twosome 2 mile many years ago.
The rest of the turns on the course are fairly sharp 90-degree type; coning them would seem likely to make the turns even sharper.
As for the diversion:
When the course was originally being designed, it was the desire of the organizers to not use any moe coning than was necessary, since it was already being restricted to the rec lane of Central Park (subsequently this was expanded to the rec lane + one).
We were also constrained by having a fixed finish (the same line & structure as the ING-NYCM the next day) and a relatively fixed start (near Rockefeller Ctr. for NBC TV purposes).
After multiple measurements of the two loops and the distance from start to the park, it was determined the course was indeed approx. 35m short.
The initial solution proposed by NYRR was to have the runners run past one of the turns at the beginning or end of the 72nd St. transverse on the first (4 mi.) loop and make a 180, then resume the normal running direction.
I felt this was a bad option for several reasons. At either end it would add a hill, but worse, you would force the best marathoners in the US to make a sharp turn early in what figures to be a very competitive (and thus closely packed) race.
Earlier this summer I noted a circular plaza on the north side of 72nd St. transverse and suggested the runners could be brought in and out of that to add the necessary distance more elegantly. Others felt the curb cuts to enter and exit that plaza weren't wide enough, so the current "detour" was designed by Dave Katz and Hugh Jones.
It's not the best solution, but not unprecedented; I recall running down a much greater length of Literary Walk during the Trevira Twosome 2 mile many years ago.
The rest of the turns on the course are fairly sharp 90-degree type; coning them would seem likely to make the turns even sharper.
I just got back from the Mens Marathon Trials, which had me more involved than I hoped. I was asked by David Katz to do a measuement the morning of the race to check it's lenght. I found the course to be over the stated distance by about 181 meters. As we all know with the SCPF the course would measure to be about 42195 plus 42 meters.
I'm sure the course is OK. I have sent my work to Neville, David, Pete and Jim. If anyone would like to see the work posted please let me know and it will be done.
I'm sure the course is OK. I have sent my work to Neville, David, Pete and Jim. If anyone would like to see the work posted please let me know and it will be done.
Gene. Is 181m a typo? If you really measured that much over distance then some explanation is called for.
US Men’s Olympic Trials Marathon Measurement Data
The measurement data shown below was obtained through examination of four reports, each having a different format. One was Hugh Jones' (forwarded by David Katz), one was Gene Newman's, two were Jim Gerweck's. Jim was present on the first day of Hugh's measurement, which determined the length of the course as laid out. He went home that day and was not present when the adjustment was made and the miles laid out. Jim also measured the course on race day. I may have made some errors, but I believe the summary to be reasonably accurate.
What explains the difference between “as measured” and “as run”? I believe two factors affected the difference.
First, Gene and Fred were surprised at the last minute call for a measurement. They had never seen the course, even in daylight, and the measurement was conducted in the dark. This undoubtedly affected their ability to ride the SPR.
The course was well on its way to being set up for the race. The course was originally laid out with no obstructions on the course. On race day, watering tables and other cones and structure were in place, forcing deviations from the SPR by Gene and Fred. The exact amount of the extra distance added cannot be documented, but it was undeniably there. The additional distance amounted to about twelve meters extra for each of the five laps involved.
The measurement data shown below was obtained through examination of four reports, each having a different format. One was Hugh Jones' (forwarded by David Katz), one was Gene Newman's, two were Jim Gerweck's. Jim was present on the first day of Hugh's measurement, which determined the length of the course as laid out. He went home that day and was not present when the adjustment was made and the miles laid out. Jim also measured the course on race day. I may have made some errors, but I believe the summary to be reasonably accurate.
What explains the difference between “as measured” and “as run”? I believe two factors affected the difference.
First, Gene and Fred were surprised at the last minute call for a measurement. They had never seen the course, even in daylight, and the measurement was conducted in the dark. This undoubtedly affected their ability to ride the SPR.
The course was well on its way to being set up for the race. The course was originally laid out with no obstructions on the course. On race day, watering tables and other cones and structure were in place, forcing deviations from the SPR by Gene and Fred. The exact amount of the extra distance added cannot be documented, but it was undeniably there. The additional distance amounted to about twelve meters extra for each of the five laps involved.
Pete,
Fred & I didn't use the SCPF, since this was a validation. I expected the course to be at least 42195 meters plus SCPF(42.195) or 42237.195 meters. As seen by the numbers I was over the expected distance by about 149 meters. As you explained, this was caused by several factors and I agree.
Also, I am waiting for Jim Gerweck's information as he also rode that day. I'm curious as to what his numbers will be. I expect his numbers to be over the distance also.
Fred & I didn't use the SCPF, since this was a validation. I expected the course to be at least 42195 meters plus SCPF(42.195) or 42237.195 meters. As seen by the numbers I was over the expected distance by about 149 meters. As you explained, this was caused by several factors and I agree.
Also, I am waiting for Jim Gerweck's information as he also rode that day. I'm curious as to what his numbers will be. I expect his numbers to be over the distance also.
I've just sent Pete & Gene my figures from the Sat AM pre-val ride; he should update his post shortly.
Several things became apparent to me on that ride.
1. On a twisting, undulating course like Central Park, familiarity breeds accuracy. The more times I've ridden there the better line I've found myself taking.
2. For an event like the OT, where there will be lots of stuff on the course (fluid tables, signage, cones, crowd barriers) the best way to measure is the way we did, before the race but after the course is set up.
I spoke w/ Dave McGilivray from Boston and asked him about the possibility of doing that for the women's Trials, and he seemed ammenable. Also, there's a slight possibility that course may need to be altered if the Pope decides to visit Boston that day during his U.S. spring tour.
Several things became apparent to me on that ride.
1. On a twisting, undulating course like Central Park, familiarity breeds accuracy. The more times I've ridden there the better line I've found myself taking.
2. For an event like the OT, where there will be lots of stuff on the course (fluid tables, signage, cones, crowd barriers) the best way to measure is the way we did, before the race but after the course is set up.
I spoke w/ Dave McGilivray from Boston and asked him about the possibility of doing that for the women's Trials, and he seemed ammenable. Also, there's a slight possibility that course may need to be altered if the Pope decides to visit Boston that day during his U.S. spring tour.
A race-day preval, done just before the race is run, is a good idea if the thing is computerized with a program that will give instant results. The women's Trials course has a turnaround that can be moved to give the needed adjustment.
If the results of Jim's ride had been known an hour before the race started, what could have been done about it? The course had no in-place turnaround, and some head-scratching would have been in order.
Also, it would be nigh impossible to get all the splits right.
All in all I think a race-day preval is too fraught with potential hurry-up mistakes for it to be a good idea. Almost every big marathon has things enroute that intrude into the SPR.
It's asking for trouble to do things at the last minute.
If the results of Jim's ride had been known an hour before the race started, what could have been done about it? The course had no in-place turnaround, and some head-scratching would have been in order.
Also, it would be nigh impossible to get all the splits right.
All in all I think a race-day preval is too fraught with potential hurry-up mistakes for it to be a good idea. Almost every big marathon has things enroute that intrude into the SPR.
It's asking for trouble to do things at the last minute.
Pete, I'd tend to agree w/ that. It's the reason the Freihofer's 5 km course was perhaps erroneously shortened a few years back when Kevin Lucas and I did the pre-val that morning. Unfortunately, that is a course where it's impossible to ride the SPR until race morning, as there are always cars parked on the park roads - they were even towing them as we rode that day.
About the only thing that could have been done in NY would have been to shorten the 72nd St. Transverse detour - this would have thrown off the 6 mi. and 10 km splits, but otherwise everything would have been OK.
About the only thing that could have been done in NY would have been to shorten the 72nd St. Transverse detour - this would have thrown off the 6 mi. and 10 km splits, but otherwise everything would have been OK.